[osflash] LGPL Licensing in actionscript

[Dan Shryock]

Ralf,

To quote wikipedia:

Essentially, it must be possible for the software to be linked with a newer
> version of the LGPL-covered program. The most commonly used method for doing
> so is to use "a suitable shared library mechanism for linking".
> Alternatively, Statically linked library is allowed if either source code or
> linkable object files are provided.


To me, this seems to imply that the situation which I mentioned above for C
applications is correct.  So my question is this: is compiling a swf which
contains LGPL code the same thing as a statically linked library in terms of
this license?  If so, it seems to me that LGPL code must be used with more
care in actionscript than in other languages (which lend themselves to
easier use of dynamically linking).

Dan



On 4/4/06, Ralf Bokelberg <ralf.bokelberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure about the details of linking. Imho using a lgpl library
> doesn't imply lgpl for the whole project. Otherwise lgpl wouldn't be
> different from gpl. Did you search Wikipedia on this?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf.
>
>
> On 4/4/06, Dan Shryock <dan.shryock at gmail.com > wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ralf,
> >
> > Thanks for the input.  From what I'm aware of with LGPL in the C world
> > is that if you modify the source to "libLib" and then compile "libLib.so"
> > and link to "libLib.so" using your app, you're safe.  But if you compile
> > "libLib" as a statically linked library, and link it into your application
> > so that they are all combined into a single file, you have to release your
> > source.  I'm not sure that my understanding is correct, but if it is, I was
> > wondering if it applies in a similar means to a swf file.  Thanks again.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> > On 4/4/06, Ralf Bokelberg <ralf.bokelberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Afaik only changes to the library itself have to be published under
> > > the LGPL. That's the reason for the existence of the LGPL.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Ralf.
> > >
> > > On 4/4/06, Dan Shryock < dan.shryock at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >  I just wanted to ask the list what its thoughts were about the
> > > requirements of the LGPL license when being compiled into a swf.  I am
> > > currently considering porting the JSON-RPC-Java client library (LGPL,
> > > written in javascript) to actionscript 3.  I have no concerns about
> > > releasing the source of the ported library, but if I were to build an
> > > application in Flex2, and it were compiled into the swf, would I be
> > > obligated to release all other source for my application?  If so, would the
> > > only way arround this be to build some separate swf which contains only the
> > > LGPL library, and an application swf which links to the other to gain access
> > > to the library?  I appreciate any insight on this issue.
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > osflash mailing list
> > > osflash at osflash.org
> > > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > osflash mailing list
> > > osflash at osflash.org
> > >  http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > osflash mailing list
> > osflash at osflash.org
> > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> osflash mailing list
> osflash at osflash.org
> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://osflash.org/pipermail/osflash_osflash.org/attachments/20060404/cc876699/attachment-0001.htm